This is intended to be a living document outlining MedBud's core policies and principles, which will be updated as our organisation finds the need to outline our stance on particular topics. We feel it's important that MedBud always remains a free and accessible resource - while providing representation for any prominent patient issues that remain unaddressed as one of the industries most influential independent organisations.

Policies on Information Handling

• We act as a non-profit organisation in public interest, and publish our financial accounts publicly.
• We will never charge to access information on medications. Detailed medical information should be available to all patients.
• We will never accept money to advertise, and inform on all products/companies/offers available by default as best-known.
• We will not accept any donations with 'strings attached', neither implying nor offering future influence over the organisation.
• We will not sell personal information, and only capture limited details to ensure our own legal and regulatory compliance.
• Any statistics compiled from our database must be entirely anonymised and always provided to our entire member-base if commissioned.
• We categorise all CBPM products using the following syntax: [Brand] [Range/Title] [T1]:[C1] [Strain or Type]
  'T' and 'C' numbers relate to THC and CBD respectively, as a percentage for flower, or exact milligram amounts for other products. For flower to convert from a percentage to milligrams per gram, times the percentage number by 10 – for example a T22 flower (22%) is 220mg/g. We do not list THC or CBD in titles for <1%.
• We will reclassify CBPMs as Indica, Indica Hybrid, Hybrid, Sativa Hybrid or Sativa strictly based on genetic lineage.
  We don't generally support using such classifications for products, but while the industry does - we feel a responsibility to ensure usage is at least correct. We take a math-based approach to corrections, where, for example, an Indica and Hybrid interbred could not possibly create a pure Sativa. Further policy details.
• We do not accept targeted text/copy for company/product descriptions, which must come from information published elsewhere.
  We will not tailor descriptions specific to MedBud as we believe this constitutes as direct advertising. All copy must be available from a company website, brochure, formulary or other official resource that we can independently verify is accessible. This policy does not apply to notes added by MedBud, where we will always reword our statements to ensure accuracy upon request.
• We post warnings on seeds, mould, insect contamination, failed lid seals and other product issues.
  When public reports of issues with a medication occur, any two similar reports within a two-week period will cause MedBud to place the product in a special review category - after which any single further report in the following two-week period will trigger a public warning on our website. We reserve the right to investigate and validate each report before treating them as authoritative, due to previous disingenuous attempts to fake issues with particular products. Warnings are removed if the next batch of the product is validated not to have the same issue, or no further reports are received within the following month.
• We will police our review system to ensure that no company-led manipulation of public perception can occur.
  Only validated patient accounts will be able to provide reviews, further details available after launch. Companies will be given the ability to reply-to reviews directly.
• We will cut-out all medication packaging images from backgrounds, and remove artificial shadows where applicable.
• We will edit all company logos to be useable on a plain white background, while attempting not to breach any known brand-usage guidelines.
• We may edit patient photo submissions to remove UI, crop, correct brightness/contrast/white balance or otherwise touch-up as appropriate.
• We create mock-ups of medication labels where official renders aren't available to us, for easy visual identification/association.
• We post medication availability information from main distributors, and treat their information foremost as authoritative.
• We respect company privacy on upcoming products and changes, but have a duty to publish when information becomes public knowledge.
  At any time there are dozens of hidden upcoming pages on the site, which we can publish automatically at certain dates/times once any NDA period is over, or press releases have been made. We override this handling if information is otherwise made public prematurely to ensure information in circulation is accurate.
• We will notify pharmacies when their official formularies (used by clinicians) contain outdated or incorrect information as best-known.
• We attempt to get secondary validation on information supplied by patients, and will chase-up submissions with companies as appropriate.
  Patients we're familiar with and have regularly provided accurate feedback in the past may not face the same scrutiny.
• We are politically agnostic and do not support particular parties, we may attempt to offer unbiased commentary wherever appropriate.

Stances on Issues Affecting Patients

• We believe that all clinics should offer all available CBPMs successfully registered with the MHRA.
  Commercial interests should never affect the availability of medication to a patient. Financial 'kickbacks' to clinics for prescribing certain brands of medications are highly unlawful, immoral and negatively affect patient healthcare. Clinics cannot be treated as marketing funnels to prescribe/bias/favour particular brands. MedBud™ can confirm such relationships currently exist within UK medical cannabis.
• We understand that default partner pharmacies are not compliant, without financial interests declared, and alternatives offered.
  Patients have a legal right to freely choose which pharmacy their prescription is sent to. Clinical staff are unable to attempt to influence choice in pharmacy; provide endorsements; nor make claims of improved service from one pharmacy over another. In all instances if there is a financial relationship between a clinic and their 'default' partner pharmacy, it must be declared explicitly. All alternative pharmacies without any financial benefit to individual clinics/specialists must also be offered upfront to avoid what is considered prescription direction.
• We believe that Certificates of Analysis (COAs) should be supplied upon request to all clinicians and patients.
  In a healthcare setting, there's no justification for withholding lab test results on medications. COAs outline important safety metrics which inform suitability such as heavy metal content, microbial potential/bioburden, pesticide traces, and often authoritative details on minor cannabinoids and terpenes. In Germany, COAs are legally required to be supplied upon request.
• We believe that terpene profiles should be commissioned for all CBPMs, and the practice should be mandated by the MHRA.
  On-going research proves the medicinal benefit particular terpenes can provide to patients, the effect of terpenes cannot be separated from the effect cannabinoids have on patients. Further, certain terpenes can cause intolerances or allergic reactions for a sub-set of patients. Detailed terpene profiles should be commissioned by default to best inform suitability for individual patients. Terpene profiles should be updated for each new crop/batch.
• We believe UK CBPMs are too expensive, affecting the number of patients willing to convert from illicit sources.
  In Canada and many American states medical cannabis flower can be purchased from as little as £2-3/g, while there is currently little domestic cultivation, we believe in the long-run these costs for patients should be achievable in the UK. While medical cannabis flower has seen around a 5x reduction in price so far since 2018, sublingual oils required by many of our most dependent patients are currently several times as expensive when cost per milligram is compared.
• We believe third-party unofficial patient ID cards are harmful to patients, and cause confusion with the police.
  The DHSC have confirmed only a prescription copy, or pharmacy dispensing label attached to medication packaging should be used to verify lawful possession of a controlled substance. All police forces across the country should be correctly following this guidance, as supported by the Home Office.
• We support the introduction of a government-issued card scheme, if all police forces are correctly trained on its validity.
  A previous MedBud patient poll in November 2023 showed: 46.1% Support Government-Issued Cards, 43.3% Support No Cards Whatsoever, 7.4% Support Clinic-Issued Cards, 3.2% Support Cards Issued by Private Businesses. Many patients feel they need some means to identify themselves without sharing private prescriptions directly, which cannot legally be requested by the police or others.

Our charter is currently being written, if you have suggestions or comments on changes please feel free to contact us.